The History Boys Irwin’s second lesson

Mind-map How has Irwin been presented so far in the play? Make sure you support your ideas with references to the text.

Irwin’s second lesson (p.23-27): How is the dichotomy between fact (truth?) and ‘spin’ presented in this scene? Consider the rhetoric in Irwin’s speeches on pages Where have we seen this before? How does his language support Mrs Lintott’s earlier comment that ‘men are [clever] at history [because it’s] storytelling’? What points are made (or suggested) about poetry and art in this scene? How are art and history compared/ contrasted?

MCMXIV, by Philip Larkin (p27). Read the poem on the learning space. Larkin was not a WW1 poet, he lived from Why do you think Bennett includes the poem in the scene? What does it suggest/ reinforce about: - The boys? - The nature of history?

Irwin: How come you know all this by heart? (Baffled, shouts.) Not that it answers the question. (He goes.) What is the effect of ending the lesson in this way? How does it make us feel towards Irwin? Bear in mind that the next scene is Hector’s lesson.

In the introduction, Bennett gives his own views on the British education system, and the inspiration for the character of Irwin. Read and discuss xxiii-xxiv. Then watch (Niall Ferguson) (Andrew Roberts) In what ways do you think that Bennett based Irwin on these personalities? Do you think he is trying to be scathing about them (and about modern historians in general?)

Irwin as villain: Andrew Roberts: ‘[Andrew Roberts and Niall Fergurson are] the inspiration for the loathsome, creepy, shallow, pederastic ‘TV Historian’ character called Irwin, who represents all that is wrong about the presentation of the past in Britain.’ To what extent do you agree with this interpretation of Irwin’s character? Make sure you support your points with quotations.

Irwin as sympathetic (in the film): Andrew Roberts: ‘far from being the hateful representative of all that is dreadful about modern society, Irwin has been turned into a rather sympathetic character. […] True, Irwin is still a fraud who lies about his educational achievements, belittles the Holocaust and plans to perform fellatio on one of his pupils – he’s still characterised as a ‘reckless, immoral’ teacher – but he’s played in the movie […] as an essentially good chap.’ ’ How far would you agree that the presentation of Irwin as villain/ sympathetic depends on the dramatic presentation of the character?

Taking it further: Homework: Read David Greenburg’s response (on the Learning Space). Bullet point his criticisms of the play’s philosophy. To what extent do you agree? Extension: Read Andrew Roberts’ full article (also on the Learning Space).